Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to darrylfries's comment:

    I'm waiting on Francona's comment the Indians offered Victorino four years at 44 mil. Can you produce it?   Ken Rosenthal at Fox news was the only one to say this.  You guys ever stick to the facts? Obviously No




    Why in the world would Francona come out and say this? Do any teams' managers make public statements on the specific years and dollars offered to free agents who signed elsewhere?

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seannybboi. Show seannybboi's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to darrylfries' comment:

    I'm waiting on Francona's comment the Indians offered Victorino four years at 44 mil. Can you produce it?   Ken Rosenthal at Fox news was the only one to say this.  You guys ever stick to the facts? Obviously No



    I don't think you know the meanings of a word "produce".  He can't "produce" Francona's comments.  That's why he's not responding.  

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    Francona already confirmed the 4/44 offer to Victorino

    Fans are so gullable. Red Sox PR has every reason to pretend that Shane was in great 4 year 44M guaranteed demand, but they were doing nothing but bidding against themselves with "my dog ate my homework" agent bluffing tactics.



    I think at this point it is fairly clear that he left money on table.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from eggplants. Show eggplants's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

                                             Actually I think he turned the Indian offer down because he looked at who the new manager was over there and decided that no self respecting ex Philly could ever play for TF and hearing a  Scott Boras comment that the Indians had in effect thrown in the towel this year, made BC the winner of the SV sweepsteaks. TF, the gift that keeps on giving. Not that this has anything to do with trading Ellsbury. It's one of those roads less traveled that threads sometimes take.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

     

    I bet Cherington is going to offer Ellsbury, a 3-year, $39 million extension.   LOL

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to darrylfries' comment:

    Puts to rest all the rumors the recent signings are a setting up a trade for Ells to get a starting good pitcher   Unless Cherington is being a little less than honest.




    A baseball GM being less than honest with the press? I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to darrylfries' comment:

    ""Why in the world would Francona come out and say this? Do any teams' managers make public statements on the specific years and dollars offered to free agents who signed elsewhere?  ""                                              Exactly southpaw and tomyv are making up stories to justify for the stupid money we gave Victorino. Neither are man enough to admit they were wrong.




    man enough? pfft...whatever.

    Im smart enough to know that you have to overpay to get lower years. Ive already said it was an overpay many times. Apparently you werent paying attention. I like Victorino and I like him on this team. a switch hitting, good player who plays hard everyday and can play all 3 OF positions very good. Who cares if they gave him a couple million extra. They have a budget just like you and me and everyone else. as long as they stay within that budget, their fine. 3 years is not a big deal.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/red_sox/index.php/2012/12/05/terry-francona-on-indians-losing-shane-victorino-to-red-sox/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/shane-victorino-red-sox-deal_n_2241770.html

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/indians-continue-pursuing-youkilis-swisher.html

    Also, the Indians havent denied offering him 4/44 either...

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to darrylfries' comment:

    ""Why in the world would Francona come out and say this? Do any teams' managers make public statements on the specific years and dollars offered to free agents who signed elsewhere?  ""                                              Exactly southpaw and tomyv are making up stories to justify for the stupid money we gave Victorino. Neither are man enough to admit they were wrong.




    man enough? pfft...whatever.

    Im smart enough to know that you have to overpay to get lower years. Ive already said it was an overpay many times. Apparently you werent paying attention. I like Victorino and I like him on this team. a switch hitting, good player who plays hard everyday and can play all 3 OF positions very good. Who cares if they gave him a couple million extra. They have a budget just like you and me and everyone else. as long as they stay within that budget, their fine. 3 years is not a big deal.



    Not to mention that he can actually throw the baseball.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    Also, the Indians havent denied offering him 4/44 either...

    Also, if anyone believes the Indians would guarantee old man Shane (coming off 2 trips to 2 different dumpsters) 44 million, please don't deny your idiocy.

    If you are part of Cherry's PR spin team, we understand you can't admit that. But we know it because it's obvious.

    Now, your PR spin didn't work for Crawford, but at least you tried to defend the 142M contract offer and the "deal of the century" to get rid of what was left on it after paying over 40 million for a minor league bum performance for two years of labor costs.




    I never wanted crawford dimwit. Nice try though DB. tell some more lies why dont ya...

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to darrylfries' comment:

    Puts to rest all the rumors the recent signings are a setting up a trade for Ells to get a starting good pitcher   Unless Cherington is being a little less than honest.




    HELLO !!!! Do you think that a GM would say say we will be trading a player soon as we get the right deal?? Hello !!! what is inside that brain of yours? You never say anything about a deal until it happens and out of respect the player knows before dummies like you. Dam !

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    From MLB Trade Rumors:

    The Red Sox approached the Phillies about a trade of Jacoby Ellsbury for Cliff Lee, but the Phillies said that Lee wasn't available. I can't blame the Phils for turning that offer down; even if they did want to move Lee, he would fetch far more on the trade market than just one year of Ellsbury, who hits free agency next winter.

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/phillies-notes-willingham-ross-suzuki-ellsbury.html

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    I have no idea why anyone would think what Cherington says to the media might be what he really thinks.

    It boggles the mind that such things are even discussed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    I don't know how much Victorino was offered to play in Cleveland,but I know he will make 13 per in Boston and that the team I root for. He is insurance in case they find a serious buyer for Ellsbury regardless of what the GM says. I doubt you'll see another Boras client signed by the Sox unless it's a bargain basement player he can't hype to those who listen to his tripe. What it would take to acquire Ellsbury from the Sox is a Top tier pitcher and a prospect. Yes he's a rental player but if you are going to play with the big boys and you are intent on winning a division then you might want too consider his rare talents. Is he worth the cost? You bet ya,he's a true catalyst at the top of the order in any contenders lineup including the Sox.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to darrylfries' comment:

    ''They overpaid because they only want to give 3 year deals to guys that couldve had 4 year deals. Thats how FA works. since they have a lot of extra cash and are a big market club, they can do this. Thats not desperate, thats business 101 regarding FA  ''                                                   Nothing was confirmed on the 4 year deals and I find it hard to believe that Victorino would have got a four year deal from anyone.          




    Francona already confirmed the 4/44 offer to Victorino..



    I have never heard a manager get into that kind of detail about a contract offer.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    But this is Tito we are talking about.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Cherington: No intent to trade Ellsbury

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    At this point, I think it's patently obvious that the Red Sox grossly overpaid for old Shane.




    The only thing patently obvious is your idiocy.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share